Delhi District Court
State vs (1)Vikrant Singh S/O Sh. Ajit Singh on 8 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWNT SINGH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.815/2016
CNR No: DLKA010012212013
FIR No.298/2013
Police Station Kalyan Puri
Under Section 302/304B/498A/120B/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act
State Versus (1)Vikrant Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh
(2)Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Jai Prakash
(3) Smt.Dhanesh W/o Ajit Singh
All R/o 13/2, Kalyan Puri, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 19.08.2013
Date of judgment reserved : 11.01.2017
Date of order : 18.01.2017
J U D G M E N T
The Police had initially filed chargesheet against two
accused persons, namely, Vikrant Singh and Ajeet and subsequently
supplementary chargehseet against accused Dhanesh was filed in case
FIR No.298/2013 under Section 302/304B/498A/120B/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act.
2. Briefly stating case of prosecution is that on
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 1 of 45
05.05.2013, on receipt of DD No.44A regarding quarrel between
husband and wife, police reached the spot i.e. H.No.13/2, Kalyan
Puri, Delhi and found one blood stained knife at the second floor and
in the adjoining room, one female namely Nita @ Vinita was found
lying on the bed in unconscious condition having injuries on her
stomach and neck. Blood was found lying on the bed sheet, blanket
as well as on the wall and floor of the room. Crime team was called
at the spot; photographs of the spot were taken and Nita @ Vinita
was removed to LBS Hospital. Accused Vikrant had already been
taken to Police Station Kalyan Puri by PCR van. Vinita was declared
"brought dead" in the hospital.
3. Statement of eye witness Amrish Kumar was
recorded. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR of the
present case was registered. Blood stained bed sheet, blood stained
blanket, earth control and other exhibits were lifted from the spot.
Blood stained knife found at the spot was taken into police
possession. Disclosure statement of accused Vikrant was recorded in
which he admitted to have murdered his wife Nita as she used to
make fun of him being unemployed. At the instance of accused
Vikrant, another knife was got recovered from an almirah on the first
floor of the house and same was also taken into police possession.
4. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Neeta @
Vinita was conducted and cause of death was opined to be shock and
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 2 of 45
haemorrhage consequent upon incised stab injuries to the neck and
abdomen caused by single edged sharp cutting weapon/knife. All the
injuries were antemortem in nature and recent in duration. Injury
Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 were individually and collectively sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature.
5. On 06.05.2013, statement of Sh. Kailash Chand,
father of the deceased was recorded by the Ld. SDM in which he had
stated that that accused persons made demand for dowry and
subjected Neeta to cruelty on account thereof. Statement of
Bhupender, brother of deceased was also recorded, who had also
imputed similar allegations as made by his father. Therefore, penal
section 498A/304B/34 IPC were added in the present case. Exhibits
were sent to FSL. Call details of the mobile phone of accused
Vikrant, Ajit and witness Amrish Kumar were obtained from which it
revealed that the police was informed from the mobile phone of
accused Vikrant and call was exchanged between the mobile phones
of accused Ajit Singh and witness Amrish Kumar. Marriage card and
documents of Hyundai i10 car given in the marriage were seized.
Accused Ajit Singh surrendered in the police station on
06.07.2013.On the apprehension of accused Smt. Dhanesh,
supplementary charge sheet against her was filed and same was
clubbed with the main chargesheet.
6. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 3 of 45
was filed.
7. On compliance of provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C.,case was committed to Court of Sessions and was assigned to
this court for trial in accordance with law.
8. After hearing Ld. Addl PP for the State and Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons Vikrant Singh and Ajeet Singh,
charges under Sections 120B IPC read with 498A/304B IPC and
substantive charges under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC were framed
against both these accused persons. Separate charges under Section
302 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act were also framed against accused Vikrant
Singh. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges
and claimed trial.
9. On 30.08.2014, a separate charge under Section 316
IPC for causing death of two female unborn child was also framed
against accused Vikrant Singh and he also pleaded not guilty to this
charge and claimed trial.
10. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was filed
against accused Smt. Dhanesh and on request of accused, same was
tagged with the main case vide order dated 23.08.2014. After hearing
Ld. Addl PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused Smt. Dhanesh,
charges under Sections 120B IPC read with 498A/304B IPC and
substantive charges under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC & 174A IPC
were framed against her on 30.08.2014 to which she pleaded not
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 4 of 45
guilty and claimed trial.
11. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined
as many as 30 witnesses.
12. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of
accused persons were recoded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which
they pleaded innocence and have stated that they been falsely
implicated in the present case.
13. Accused persons adduced defence evidence. DW1
is Dr. Meenakshi Singh. She has proved OPD Card, bills and reports
etc. as Ex.DW1/A in respect of treatment of Neeta. DW2 is Dr.
Mukesh Koushal, who has proved Ultrasound reports and Images as
Ex.DW2/A of Neeta. PW3 is Liazley Robert, Record Clerk of St.
Stephen's Hospital and he has proved treatment records in respect of
patient Neeta as Ex.DW3/A and Ex. DW3/B. DW4 Sh. Mahesh
Chauhan, PRO, Head Post Office, Krishna Nagar, has proved
registration documents relating to operation of cable Network in
favour of Vaishno Cable Network and Shri Vaishno cable TV
Network as Ex.DW4/A, Letter of Sr. Post Master with regard to fact
that copies of the license relating to 19981999 were not available in
the office. Copies of License have been proved as Ex.DW4/D and 11
certificates issued from HPO, Krishna Nagar have been proved as
Ex.DW4/E. DW5 is Sh. Ravi Sawhney, DGM of Indusind Media &
Communications Ltd. who has stated that as per his record M/s Shri
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 5 of 45
Vaishno Cable Network has been owned by Mr. Ajit Singh and it is
their franchise since 2008. Certificate to this effect has been proved
as Ex.DW5/A.
14. I have heard Ld. Chief PP for the State as well as Ld.
Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons
and perused the record.
15. Ld. Chief PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for
the complainant have stated that prosecution has been able to prove
presence of accused persons at the spot by way of evidence of PW3;
blood of the deceased was found present on the knife recovered from
the spot as well as on the jeans pant worn by the accused Vikrant at
the relevant time. Even it has come in evidence that accused Vikrant
had given information to the Police from his own phone, which
proves his presence at the spot at the relevant time. PW3 has also
proved on record that accused Vikrant as well as his mother Dhanesh
were present at the spot at the relevant and no other outsider was
present in their house at the relevant time, nor any such suggestion
was put to PW3, therefore, only accused persons have committed
murder of the deceased. It has come in evidence that a car as well as
other valuable articles were given in marriage and even thereafter
accused persons had been harassing deceased for dowry. PW8 has
stated that accused Vikrant had confessed his guilt before the PCR
Incharge. First knife with which murder of the deceased was
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 6 of 45
committed was recovered at the instance of accused Vikrant. Blood
of the deceased was found on the knife as well as jeans pant of the
accused Vikrant as per report of the FSL. As per postmortem report,
the deceased was beaten up before being fatally stabbed; after the
incident accused Dhanesh, mother of accused Vikrant fled away and
even the defence witnesses could not shake the case of the
prosecution. It is submitted that on the basis of evidence brought on
record, prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused
persons. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:
(1) Sanjay vs. State 2010 Cri.L.J. 3214 (DHC);
(2) Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 Cri.L.J.1123 (SC);
(3) Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2010 Cri.L.J. 4402 (SC);
(4) Deen Dayal vs. State of U.P. 2009 Cri.L.J. 1119 (SC);
(5) Uday Chakraborty vs. State of W.B. 2010 Cri.L.J. 3862(SC);
(6) Sampath Kumar vs. Insp. Of Police, Krishna Giri (2012) 4 SCC
124;
(7) State of Rajasthan vs. Smt.Kalki & Anr. 1981 C.L.R. 628 (SC)
(8) Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat 2002 (11) AD (SC)
157;
(9) Bakshish Singh vs. State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC 187: and
(10) Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharastra 2007 Cri.L.J.
20 ( SC).
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 7 of 45
submitted that it has not been proved on record that any cruelty or
harassment was caused to the deceased soon before her death and
nothing in the testimony of Kailash Chand, Bhupender and Smt.
Sheela (father, brother and mother of the deceased) to prove such
allegation has come on record; there are improvements and
contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses; PW5 was not
able to give dates of alleged demand of dowry by accused persons nor
such dates were told to the SDM in their statement and PW9 in his
testimony did not name any person except accused Vikrant. It is also
submitted that allegation that accused persons had demanded
Rs.10.00 Lacs for running their Cable Business is false as it has come
on record that accused were already running such Cable Business.
Inquest was done after FIR was registered; Local enquiry was not
conducted; extra judicial confession was allegedly made before Sh.
Amrish Tyagi, however, he did not support the case of the
prosecution, hence, extra judicial confession has no relevance; PCR
form is not proved on record for want of compliance under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act; accused Vikrant is not a signatory
to the sketch of the knife; Pulanda of knife is not signed by the
witnesses; as per Crime Scene report the knife was lifted between
10.15 to 10.45 p.m., whereas knife was recovered after midnight,
hence, recovery of the knife is doubtful. Knife Ex.P1 was planted on
the accused. Even description of the knife has specifically come on
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 8 of 45
record after alleged sealing; so possibility of the tampering of the
Pulandas can not be ruled out. No time of death is mentioned in the
postmortem report and no opinion was sought regarding time of
death. No complete record regarding transferring of the knife from
Malkhana to Hospital and back was not produced; knife was already
exhibited, so it was under the care and custody of the Court and no
prior permission was taken from the Court. Even weapon of offence
was not shown to the Doctor at the time of his evidence; FIR is not
proved on record in the absence of certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act; even the witness does not say that copy of
the FIR was sent to the higher officers; accused Ajeet had booked
and took delivery of the car and father of the deceased girl did not
disclose the source of his income to buy this car. As against accused
Dhanesh for proving charge of offence under Section 174A, there is
no evidence, process server has not been examined; there has been
unfair investigation in the present case as concerned Doctor who
prepared MLC of the accused Vikrant has not been examined to
prove injuries on his person, which might have been received by him
while fighting with the deceased. Constable who clicked the photos
has not been examined; no proof of income of the parents of deceased
has come on record; mobile phone of accused was not seized and
benefit of unfair investigation should go to the accused. It is further
submitted that if the evidence is subject to two interpretations; one
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 9 of 45
favouring the prosecution and another accused, then interpretation
which favours the accused should be adopted. In support of above
mentioned contentions, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons relied
upon following judgments:
(1) Tarun @ Gautan Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal 2000 (4)
Crimes 260(SC);
(2) Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2000 (4) Crimes 283 (SC);
(3) Satish Kumar vs. State 1995 (3) C.C.Cases 252 (DHC);
(4) Vipin Jaiswal vs State of A.P. 2013 Cri.L.J. 2095;
(5) Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (2012) 10 SCC 741;
(6) Ahmed Sayeed vs State 2014 (1) LRC 378 (Delhi);
(7) Atul Sharma and Anr. vs. State [Crl.Appeal No. 142/2000
decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.05.2013];
(8) Chaman Lal vs. Emperor AIR 940 Lahore 210;
(9) Iqbal Singh vs. State of Punjab 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 265;
(10)Vinod Chaturvedi etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1984
C.C.Cases 49 (SC);
(11)State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar 2014 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 759;
(12) Rahisa vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2012 (1) C.C.Cases (HC) 70;
(13) Rajeev Ohlan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2016 (4) LRC 362 (Del);
(14) Janardan Sada @ Matua vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 [2]
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 10 of 45
JCC 1435;
(15) Mahmood vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 69;
(16) Deepak vs. State 2011 [3] JCC 2321;
(17) Bhagwan Das vs.State of Haryana 1996 MLR 364;
(18) Parmeshwari vs. State 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) (DHC) 827;
(19) Yamin (Mohd.) vs. State 2008) IV AD (Cr.) (DHC) 577;
(20) Shivlal and another vs. State of Chattisgarh 2011(4) RCR
(Criminal) 286;
(21) Achchey Lal Yadav vs. State 2014 (8) LRC 236 (Del.);
(22) Mani Kamat @ Dinesh vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2015 (8)
LRC 156 (Del);
(23) Vineet Vats vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2014 [2] JCC 990;
(24) Munni Lal vs. The State 1995 JCC 110;
(25) Sunil Kundi and another vs. State of Jharkhand 2013 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 147;
(26) Kailash Gour & Ors. vs. State of Assam 2012 91) LRC 81 (SC);
(27) Kanwar Pal vs. Shakuntala & Ors. 2015 (3) LRC 335 (Del);
(28) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs. Lallu Ram 2016 (4) LRC 324
(Del);
(29) State of UP vs. Arun Kumar Gupta 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal)
385;
(30) State of Maharastra vs. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Ors. 2009
(1) RCR 224 ; &
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 11 of 45
(31) Kishan Lal vs. State (Delhi)1991 JCC 35 (DHC).
17. There is no dispute as to ratios laid down in the
abovesaid judgments relied on behalf of the complainant as well as
accused persons. However every criminal case is unique and it has to
be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances.
18. PW3 Sh.Amrish Kumar is the complainant in the
present case. PW5 Sh. Kailash Chand is father, PW9 Bhupneder is
brother and PW15 Smt. Sheela is mother of the deceased and their
testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
Evidence of Police Officials and other formal witnesses.
19. PW1 HC Yatvir Singh was working as Duty Officer
on 05.05.2013. He recorded DD No.44A at Police Station Kalyan
Puri regarding quarrel between husband and wife. This DD has been
proved as Ex.PW1/A. On the same day, PW1 received Rukka sent by
Inspector Arvind Kumar and recorded FIR No. 298/13 U/s 302 IPC.
Copy of the FIR has been proved as Ex.PW1/B and made
endorsement Ex.PW1/C on the Rukka. He has also proved DD
No.46A, 27A and DD No.5A as Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/F respectively.
20. PW6 Lady Ct.Manoj Kumari was working in PHQ in
the PCR and she received a call from mobile No. 9911774480
regarding quarrel between husband and wife. She has proved PCR
form as Ex.PW6/A. PW7 HC Narender Rana has produced the Duty
Roaster of executive staff posted in PCR, East Zone on the
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 12 of 45
intervening night of 5/6.05.2013. Same has been proved as
Ex.PW7/A. PW8 is Ct. Mohd. Sabir (Driver on the PCR van). On
receipt of a call, PCR reached at the spot and Incharge of PCR ASI
Subhash Chand made enquiry from Vikrant as to what had happened.
Vikrant stated that he had committed murder of his wife with knife.
Hands and Jeans Pant of Vikrant were stained with blood. They
brought Vikrant to the Police Station. They again went to the spot
and removed the dead body of Neeta @ Vinita to LBS Hospital and
she was declared dead in the hospital. PW10 ASI Subhash Chand
was Incharge of the PCR van and he supported PW8. PW10 in his
cross examination by Ld. Addl PP admitted that he stated in his
statement to the Police that accused Vikrant stated before them that he
had committed murder of his wife with knife. PW14 Ct. Om Jeet was
posted as Duty Constable at LBS Hospital. He deposed that PCR
brought injured Vinita wife of Vikrant in the hospital on 05.05.2013
and she was declared as "brought dead". Patient was brought
wrapped in a bedsheet stained with blood and same was taken into
possession by the IO vide memo Ex.PW14/A. PW16 Dr. Ranjitesh
Kumar has initially examined the patient and prepared MLC
Ex.PW16/A and noted that patient was brought dead. Dr. Ranjitesh
Kumar removed the jewellery items from the body of the patient.
PW17 Ct. Megh Ram Meena is a witness to arrest of accused Ajeet.
He proved arrest memo of accused Ajeet as Ex.PW17/A and his
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 13 of 45
personal search memo as Ex.PW17/B. PW18 Ct. Nemi Chand was
working as Wireless Operator on vehicle No DL ICJ3645 and Ct.
Vinod was driver on said vehicle. He received information that
murder had taken place at 13/2, Kalyan Puri and he conveyed this
information to the SHO. He took the Rukka to the Police Station and
got the case registered. PW19 Ct. Sunder Pal had joined
investigation.
21. PW20 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular
Ltd. had stated that he was working as Nodal Officer and had proved
CAF and CDR record in respect of Mobile No 9990910828 as
Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW21/A respectively. Copy of Cell ID chart is
Ex.PW20/C and certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act is
Ex.PW20/D. The said mobile was in the name of Ajeet Singh.
22. PW21 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti
Airtel Ltd. had proved CAF and CDR of mobile No. 9810719525 as
Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B and certificate under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act as Ex.PW21/C and this mobile is registered in the name
of Amrish Kumar.
23. PW30 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer of
Vodafone has brought CAF in respect of Mobile No. 9911774480 in
the name of Vikrant Singh. CAF and ID proof have been proved as
Ex.PW30/A. CDR has been proved as Ex.PW30/B and certificate
under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been proved as
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 14 of 45
Ex.PW30/C.
24. PW22 Insp Mahesh Kumar has prepared scaled site
plan as Ex.PW22/A.
25. PW2 SI Kaushal Ganguly was Incharge of Mobile
Crime Team/East District. He visited the scene of occurrence on
05.05.2013 and prepared his report Ex.PW2/A. During his
inspection, PW2 lifted 6 exhibits consisting of earth control, blood
stained earth, bed mattresses stained with blood, one blood stained
blanket, blood stained bedsheet and one sharp edged knife (Dagger),
which was also blood stained. PW4 Ct.Vikas was member of the
Mobile Crime Team and was a photographer. He took photographs of
the scene of crime as well as of blood stained knife. Negatives have
been proved as Ex.PW4/A and photographs as Ex.PW4/B1 and
Ex.PW4/B2.
26. PW23 SI Sandeep Kumar on receipt of DD No. 44A
Ex.PW1/A reached at the spot and came to know that accused Vikrant
had committed murder of his wife and he had been taken to Police
Station; he noticed blood stained knife on the left side of the staircase
and dead body of Vinita @ Neeta in a side room having knife injuries
on her neck and stomach; crime team was informed by Insp. Arvind
Kumar; dead body was removed to LBS Hospital; exhibits were
seized; he also stated that accused Vikrant had informed the Police at
phone No.100. He also noticed that accused was wearing a jeans
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 15 of 45
having stains. PW24 SI Murtaza Khan has also corroborated the
testimony of PW23.
27. PW27 Inspector Malti Bana has stated that on
21.04.2014, accused Dhanesh surrendered in the Police Station; she
was arrested vide memo Ex.PW24/B and her personal search 24/C
was conducted; she made disclosure statement Ex.PW24/D and
pointing out memo prepared at her instance is Ex.PW24/E.
28. PW28 Insp. Rajeev Vimal had forwarded case
property, inquest papers, PM Report and MLC to CMO, Forensic
Department for subsequent opinion. Application moved by him for
subsequent opinion has been proved as Ex.PW28/A.
29. PW29 Insp. Arvind Kumar was SHO of Police
Station Kalyan Puri at the relevant time. He reached the spot, blood
stained knife was taken into possession; photographs of the room, in
which dead body of Vinita was lying, were taken; he recorded
statement Ex.PW3/A of neighbour Amrish Kumar and made
endorsement Ex.PW29/B and got the case registered. He seized the
knife; he lifted the exhibits from the spot; he recorded statement of
the witnesses; arrested accused Vikrant; he seized the mobile of
Samsung make from which accused Vikrant had informed the Police
at No.100; Local SDM was informed; postmortem on the dead body
of Vinita was got conducted; marriage card and other documents
relating to marriage and document of car were taken into police
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 16 of 45
custody vide memo Ex.PW29/P1 and Ex.PW29/P2.
30. PW6 Lady Ct. Manoj Kumari has stated that on
05.05.2013, she was posted in PHQ and was working on Channel No.
158 for attending the calls. At about 09.11 pm, she received a call
from Mobile No. 9911774480 regarding quarrel between husband and
wife at 13, Block2, Kalyan Puri, Delhi. She completed PCR form
and transmitted the message to the concerned Police Station and
Zonal PCR. PCR form has been proved as Ex.PW6/A. PW7 HC
Narender Rana has proved attested copy of Duty Roaster of Executive
Staff posted in PCR and same is Ex.PW7/A.
31. PW11 Sh.Amit Malhotra is Sales Manager with
Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.(Hyundai). He has brought the file of i10
Hyundai car and stated that i10 Era Model car of white colour was
booked in the one of Ajit by Bhupender on 19.01.2012. As per
report, the name of the contact person is Kailash Chand and initial
payment/booking payment of Rs.90,000/ in cash was made by
Bhupender. He had handed over the copy of this receipt to the IO vide
seizure memo Ex.PW11/A and copy of the form is Ex.PW11/B.
33. In his cross examination, PW11 stated that name of
Kailash Chand is not mentioned in the Ex.PW11/B. He did not tell the
name of any Kailash Chand to the police in his statement. He
admitted that vehicle is booked in the name of one Ajit. The
photocopy of retail invoice is Ex.PW11/DA. He admitted that as per
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 17 of 45
record, the payment receipt was issued in favour of Mr. Ajit.
34. PW 12 Sh. Anees was working as a Weldor with
Bhupender. On 19.01.12, he had accompanied Bhupender to Nimbus
Motors (Hyundai), Noida for purchasing i10 car and Bhupender
booked the said car and made payment of Rs.90,000/ in cash in the
name of Ajit Singh as Bhupender had told him that his family wanted
to give the said car to Vikrant Singh. On 14.02.12, he again
accompanied Bhupender for taking delivery of said car and
Bhupender took the delivery of i10 Era car after making remaining
payment. Photograph was taken while taking delivery.
35. PW 13 is Sh. P.K.Dabas, who was working as SDM
at the relevant time. He prepared inquest papers, got identified the
dead body from near relatives and thereafter made request for
conducting postmortem. The inquest paper regarding unnatural death
is ExPW13/A, statement regarding identification of dead body are
ExPW5/A and EXPW9/A and request for conducting postmortem is
ExPW13/B; the brief facts are ExPW13/C. The relatives of the
deceased were in mental shock due to incident, he could not record
their statement on that day. Later on on 8.5.13, PW13 called Kailash
Chand father of deceased, Bhupinder brother of deceased and
recorded their statements, which are already proved as ExPW5/B and
ExPW9/B. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not visit
spot or the hospital on 05.05.2013 after receiving information. He
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 18 of 45
could not say if FIR had already been registered on 06.05.2013 before
moving application for postmortem. He admitted that FIR number is
mentioned on application Ex.PW13/B. He also stated that none of the
documents is in his handwriting. He had not visited the spot in the
present case. He had not conducted any inquiry with regard to
relationship between deceased and her husband.
Evidence of independent witness and family members
36. PW5 is Sh. Kailash Chand, who is father of deceased
Neeta. He deposed that Neeta was married to accused Vikrant on
15.02.12 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He got married his
another daughter Ms. Kaushal with Roshan, brother of accused
Vikrant on the same day. He had given sufficient dowry in cash,
household articles, jewellery etc. and the marriage was solemnized
with great pomp and show. The dowry articles were entrusted to
accused, his parents and other relatives. In dowry, he had given one
i10 Car, one AC, LCD TV, wooden furniture, other household
articles etc.. He had spent Rs.40 Lacs in the marriage of his both the
daughters Neeta and Kaushal.
37. PW5 further states that just after 1520 days of
marriage of his daughters, accused Vikrant, his brother Dinesh,
mother Dhanesh and father Ajeet started demanding dowry in cash.
They had demanded Rs.2 Lacs and then 3 Lacs and he met their
demands. He was having agricultural land and same was acquired by
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 19 of 45
Greator Noida Authority, he received compensation in huge amount.
Accused Vikrant and his family members came to know about this
fact and then, accused Vikrant demanded Rs.10 Lacs as dowry.
38. As per him, accused persons used to subject Neeta to
mental and physical cruelty in connection with dowry and they used
to demand dowry in cash. Neeta used to tell PW5 whenever she
visited them. Even PW5 told this fact to his near relatives and friends
and thereafter, they held meeting with accused and his family
members on the issue of harassment caused for dowry to Neeta but
the accused persons did not restrain themselves from subjecting Neeta
to cruelty. PW5 did not take action due to social circumstances and
family reputation. Later on, PW5 was informed that Neeta was
pregnant but still she was subjected to cruelty.
39. On 05.05.13, at about 10.30 pm, PW5 received a call
that Neeta had been murdered and taken to LBS Hospital.
Immediately, PW5 alongwith other family members firstly reached
matrimonial house of Neeta and then to LBS Hospital where they saw
dead body of Neeta was having knife injuries on her stomach, neck
and chest. He identified dead body of Neeta in the presence of SDM,
who had also reached there and statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded.
Postmortem on the dead body was conducted and thereafter they
received the dead body and we had performed last rituals at his native
village.
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 20 of 45
40. On 08.05.13, statement Ex.PW5/B of PW5 Kailash
Chand was recorded by the SDM. Police also made enquiry and
recorded his statement. He produced marriage card of his daughter
Neeta with accused Vikrant and documents of i10 Car which were
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/C. The marriage card is
Ex.P1 while the documents of the i10 Car are collectively Ex.P2.
The list of dowry articles Ex.P3 was also produced by him to police
vide memo Ex.PW5/D. He had also given photograph taken at the
time of delivery of i10 Car from the agency to his son Bhupender
and his friend. The said photograph is Ex.P4. He had also given the
details of Pandit Ji who performed the marriage of his daughter Neeta
with accused Vikrant. He has specifically stated that accused Vikrant
(husband), Ajeet (father in law), Dhanesh (mother in law, Roshan @
Dheeraj (devar) and Ankit (devar) used to give beating to his
daughter Neeta and also threatened her for dowry.
41. In his cross examination, PW5 stated that marriage of
his both the daughters had taken place simultaneously and the
bridegrooms were real brothers. There was no difficulty or problem in
the marriage ceremonies and Dolis went smoothly. He admitted that
he had not lodged any written complaint to any authority or Biradari
(caste) till death of his daughter Neeta had taken place. No dowry
demand was made from him prior to the marriage. He admitted that
he came to know that his daughter Neeta was pregnant a month prior
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 21 of 45
to her death. He has denied that his daughter Neeta was being treated
during her pregnancy in St. Stephen's Hospital. He did not know if
Neeta was also being treated in Meenakshi Hospital, Kaushambi. He
is not aware that Neeta was having twin fetus. He took body of his
daughter Neeta to his native village Dedha and cremated Neeta there.
42. In further crossexamination, PW5 submitted that he had
not stated before the SDM regarding giving articles such as one AC,
LCD TV, wooden furniture and other articles. He had not stated in his
statement to the SDM that articles given at the time of marriage were
handed over to accused and his relations. He had stated before the
SDM that after 1520 days of marriage, accused Vikrant, his brother
and mother started demanding Rs.2,00,000/ in cash. He volunteered
that demand of Rs.2,00,000/ was mentioned before the SDM. He
had stated before the SDM that accused Vikrant and his family
members came to know about receipt of huge land compensation by
him. He had stated to the SDM that he told his near relatives and
friends that accused persons used to cause mental and physical torture
to his daughter, they had meeting with accused and his family
members on the issue of harassment for dowry to Neeta but the
accused person did not restrain themselves from subjecting Neeta to
cruelty. He did not take action due to social circumstances and
family reputation. On these aspects, he was confronted with
Ex.PW5/DA, where it is not so recorded.
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 22 of 45
43. As per PW5, he was informed in the Police Station that
he was to go to SDM to give statement. When SDM recorded his
statement, PW5, his son and one police personnel were present in the
SDM Office. SDM was recording statement in his own handwriting.
SDM had not recorded statement of his wife in his presence.
44. PW5 Kailash Chand had also stated that accused Ajeet
singh was dealing in cable business as well as in agriculture. He
admitted that at the time of marriage, accused Ajeet Singh appeared
to be well off. He did not know the registration number of the car
allegedly given by him in the marriage. He did not recollect the date
when he came to know for the first time about harassment caused to
his daughter by accused. He did not remember the date as to when
his daughter was harassed or beaten in his presence.
45. He admitted that that he did not lodge any complaint to
police or any other authority against the accused persons till
05.05.2013 about alleged cruelty or harassment or any demand of
dowry. He admitted that SDM recorded his statement as per his
version. He also admitted that marriage of his daughter had taken
place after they had satisfaction about family credentials of accused
persons.
46. PW9 Sh. Bhupender is brother of the deceased Neeta.
He deposed on the lines of PW5 as to dowry articles given in the
marriage and demand of dowry made by accused persons. On certain
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 23 of 45
points he was cross examined by Ld. Addl PP in which he admitted
that on 06.05.2013, he had identified the dead body of his sister Neeta
and his statement was recorded to that effect which is Ex.PW9/A. He
also admitted that SDM recorded his statement on 08.05.13 which is
Ex.PW9/B or that they met the demand of Rs.2 Lacs and he stated so
to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW9/B. Or that demand of Rs.3 Lacs
was also met. It is deposed that despite the demands being met, the
accused persons continued beating his sister Neeta and he had stated
so in his statement Ex.PW9/B. Neeta was pregnant at the time of
demand of Rs.10 Lacs and he stated so in his statement Ex.PW9/B.
He also deposed that there were injury marks on the stomach, neck
and other parts of body of Neeta.
47. In his cross examination on behalf of accused persons,
PW9 stated that at the time of marriage, accused persons were
engaged in Cable Network business. He did not tell the dates to the
SDM in his statement Ex.PW9/B on which the demand of 2.00 Lacs,
3.00 Lacs and 10.00 Lacs were made by accused persons. He did not
tell dates of payments to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW9/B of 2.00
Lacs and 3.00 Lacs to the accused persons. Except Vikrant, other
accused persons did not demand Rupees Ten Lacs in cash. He
admitted that there were no demands from the side of accused persons
before marriage or till the marriage. He also admitted that they had
given articles to their sisters in the marriage as per customs and
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 24 of 45
traditions.
48. PW9 did not lodge any complaint against the accused
persons about demand of dowry and harassment to his sister prior to
5.5.2013. He volunteered that a Panchayat meeting was called at
their house but he did not remember the date of said Panchayat. Said
Panchayat meeting was probably called after about 34 months of
marriage. He admitted that he was told about beatings by Neeta and
no such incident of beating had taken place in his presence. He
admitted that his sister was pregnant at the time of her death.
49. PW15 is Smt. Sheela. She is mother of deceased. She
deposed that her two daughters Neeta and Kaushal were married with
accused Vikrant and Roshan, sons of Ajeet Singh. She also deposed
that they spent Rs.40.00 Lacs in the marriage and dowry articles were
given. She also deposed that Neeta told her that she was being
subjected to mental and physical torture and was given beatings.
Neeta also told that accused demanded Res.2.00 Lacs for purchasing
some luxurious car; accused also demanded again Rs.3.00 Lacs and
again Rs.10.00 Lacs for which accused were harassing Neeta. She
deposed that Neeta was pregnant and they were unable to meet
demand of Rs.10.00 Lacs and later on her husband received
information that Neeta had been murdered.
50. In her cross examination, PW15 stated that she had not
made any complaint to Police or to any authority or Biradri or to the
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 25 of 45
mediator. Fatherinlaw of Neeta was doing work of Cable TV. She
could not could tell the dates of visit of Neeta to her place after
marriage. She even did not tell the dates of demands of Rs.2.00 Lacs,
Rs.3.00 Lacs and Rs.10.00 Lacs made by accused. She further stated
that she did not recollect if she had stated to Police that her daughter
used to visit her house after marriage or that inlaws of her daughter
used to mentally torture her daughter. She had not stated to the Police
that her daughter was pregnant and they were unable to fulfill the
demand of Rs.10.00 Lacs. She stated to the Police that on hearing the
news of death of her daughter, she along with her husband and son
went to the inlaws of her daughter and nobody was found present.
She did not recollect if she stated to the Police that she had enough
shock and became unconscious and then she was sent to her home.
51. From the testimonies of the family members (PW5, 9 &
15), it does not stand proved on record that accused persons had
harassed the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before
her death. As all these witnesses have stated that accused persons had
not demanded any dowry prior to marriage; they had verified their
credentials before marriage and no complaint was lodged to any
authority regarding any demand of dowry by any of the accused
persons till 05.05.2013. PW9, brother of the deceased has even stated
that articles in the dowry were given as per customs and traditions. It
has also come in evidence of these witnesses that accused persons had
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 26 of 45
already been running the business of Cable TV even prior to marriage
of deceased with accused Vikrant and they appeared to be well off.
52. It would be relevant to quote Section 113B of Evidence
Act, which reads as under :
"When the question is whether a person has committed
the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman has been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry
death."
53. Section 113B of Evidence Act provides for raising of
a presumption by Court in cases of dowry death where a married
woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her
death in connection with demand of dowry. It is pertinent to mention
that presumption with regard to dowry death could only be on
fulfillment of necessary ingredients i.e. "death of woman is caused by
any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances", "such death is caused within seven years of her
marriage", "soon before her death, such woman had been subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of
husband for or in connection with any demand of account of dowry"
and it is a rebuttable presumption.
54. In the present case, the presumption has been
rebutted by cogent and convincing evidence as discussed above.
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 27 of 45
Therefore, when the essential ingredients that deceased was subjected
to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection
with demand of dowry has not been proved, question of drawing
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not arise.
55. In view of above discussion, I hold that though it has
been proved on record that deceased Poonam Sharma died within 7
years of her marriage, but there is no evidence on record to
substantiate that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the accused for or connection with demand of dowry in
view of evidence of family members of the deceased as discussed
above. Even there is no evidence of existence of any conspiracy
between the accused persons for harassing the deceased for dowry or
eliminating her for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry by accused
persons. Therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove its case
against accused persons under Section 304B/498A/120B/34 IPC.
Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for the charges
under Section 304B/498A/120B/34 IPC.
56. However, fact remains that number of stab injuries
were found present on the dead body of deceased Vinita @ Neeta.
PW16 Dr. Ranjitesh Kumar, CMOLBS Hospital has deposed that on
05.05.2013 at about 10.05 p.m. injured Vineeta was brought by I/C
PCR and he medically examined the patient. As the injured/patient
was pregnant, he called Sr. Gynae Doctor. He prepared MLC
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 28 of 45
Ex.PW16/A. The patient was declared 'brought dead'.
57. PW26 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Specialist, Forensic
Medicine, LBS Hospital, Delhi. He deposed that on 06.05.13, SDM
P. K. Dabas, Mayur Vihar had submitted 15 inquest papers for
conducting post mortem of deceased Neeta @ Vineeta. On
examination on the dead body of Neeta @ Vineeta, following external
injuries were found :
1.Incised wound, 9x1.2 cmx2.5 cm deep, obliqualy placed over front of neck 5 cm below chin margin sharp and regular
2. Stab wound, 3x1.6 cm x 3.5 cm deep, over left side of neck 10 cm below left ear, margin sharp and regular and lower and acute, 136 cm above heel.
3. Stab wound, 3.6x1.3 cmx1.7 cm deep, medium and parallel to injury no.2, margin sharp and regular lower and acute 137 cm above the heel on left side of neck, oblique.
4. Stab wound, 3.5 x 1.5 cm cavity deep over left hypocondrium, margin sharp and regular, lower and acute, 1.5 cm above heel, oblique.
5. Stab wound, 4x1 cm cavity deep, margin sharp and regular, lower and acute, 94 cm above heel in left ilice fossa.
6. Stab wound, 4.2 x 1.7 cm cavity deep over left side 2 cm to umblicus and 97.5 cm above heel, margin sharp and regular, lower and acute, umblical cord protruding out.
7. Multiple nail marks over right side and front of neck of size .3 x .5 cm, 1.1x.3 cm in area of 4x3.2 cm.
8. Multiple bruise mark, 1x1 cm to 2x1 cm over left side of neck in area of 9x8 cm.
9. Multiple abrasions around left eye size 3x3 cm
10.Lacerated wound 1x.4 cm over lower lid of right eye.
11.Lacerated wound 3.5x1 cm over front of chin.
12.Stab wound, 2.5 x 1 cmx 3 cm deep over right breast 2.5 cm SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 29 of 45 below right nipple, 116 cm above heel, margin sharp and regular, lower and acute.
13.Stab wound 4x1.5 cm x 7 cm deep over left breast, 133 cm above heel margin sharp and regular, oblique, lower and acute.
14.Stab wound 3.8 x 1.8 cm, cavity deep 127 cm above heel, margins sharp and regular, oblique, lower and acute over left breast.
15.Stab wound, 4x.8 cm, cavity deep, 127 cm above heel, margin sharp and regular, lower and acute, oblique, over left breast .
16.Stab wound 4.5 cm x 1.2 cm cavity deep 126 cm above heel, margin sharp and regular, oblique, lower and acute over left breast.
58. On internal examination in uterus, two female fetus present, weight 1600 gms, length 42 cms. On the left side fetus, one stab wound was found over right side of back near 6 th cervical spine 10x2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, margin sharp and regular. Stab wound over right parietal region of scalp, 3.5x1 cm, cranial cavity deep, margins sharp and regular. Injury no.3 right foot little finger incised, 1.1 cm , margin sharp and regular.
59. Right side fetus, 2200 gms, body length 46 cm. No mark of any injury were present.
60. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage consequent upon incised stab injuries to neck and abdomen caused by singleedged sharp cutting weapon/knife, all injuries were antemortem in nature and recent in duration. Injury no.1,2,3,4,5 and 6 individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW26 had also seized and sealed blood SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 30 of 45 sample in gauze piece, clothes and nail clippings of both right and left hands with seal of department and handed over to IO alongwith sample of seal. He prepared the detailed post mortem report No.182/13 and same is Ex.PW26/A.
61. Only important witness remains is PW3 Sh. Amrish Kumar, who is neighbour of accused persons. He deposed that he was living in the neighbourhood of accused persons and running electronic shop at ground floor in the same premises. On 05.05.13, he was present at his shop and at about 9.00 pm, accused Vikrant alongwith his mother Smt. Dhanesh returned from vegetable market to their house i.e. adjacent to his house bearing House No.13/2, Kalyan Puri. Accused Vikrant and his mother went inside their house and after about 23 minutes, Smt. Dhanesh followed by accused Vikrant came out shouting. PW3 came out of his shop. Meanwhile, Smt. Dhanesh fell down and became unconscious. Accused Vikrant also came there and told that someone had murdered his wife Neeta and asked him to inform the police. Thereafter, PW3 made call to the police from his mobile no.9810719525 but call could not be connected. Then, someone informed the police at no.100 and after about 23 minutes, PCR Van reached at the spot and after sometime, local police as well as SHO PS Kalyan Puri also reached there. Accused Vikrant was taken by PCR Van to Police Station. Statement Ex.PW3/A bears signatures of PW3. This witness was declared SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 31 of 45 hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl PP.
62. In his cross examination by Ld.Addl PP, PW 3 admitted that when accused Vikrant came out of his house, he was wearing jeans only. PW3 denied that he stated to police in his statement Ex.PW3/A that when accused Vikrant came down, he told PW3 that "Mujhe Thane Le Chalo, Mujhe Jo Karna Tha, Maine Kar Diya". (Confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A wherein it is so recorded). PW3 admitted that police reached there and took the custody of accused Vikrant. He denied that he stated to police in his statement Ex.PW3/B that when Vikrant came down after the incident, his jeans pant was stained with blood and fingers of his right hand and right arms were having injuries. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it is so recorded). He denied that he has been won over and influenced by the brother of accused Ajeet and for this reason, he was not deposing complete true facts. He has denied that accused Vikrant and his mother Dhanesh were present in the house on the day of incident till they came out shouting from their house. He has admitted that he had not seen any stranger entering or coming out from the house of accused on the day of incident. He denied that when accused Vikrant came of his house, his jeans was stained with blood and he was having injury on finger of his right hand and arm. He has denied that accused persons used to harass Neeta for dowry.
63. In his cross examination on behalf of accused SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 32 of 45 persons, PW3 stated deceased and accused Vikrant and even other family members were living happily in their house and he had not heard about any dispute between them. The family of accused persons were having cordial relations with the residents of neighbouring houses.
64. As per PW3 in crossexamination, accused Vikrant and accused Ajeet were engaged in cable business being run from their house. Their customers used to visit them at their house. He has seen accused persons doing cable work since 1996.
65. It has come in the evidence of PW3 on record that accused Vikrant and his mother Smt. Dhanesh had returned from vegetable market to their house at about 9.00 p.m. It is, therefore, clear that at the time of incident, accused Vikrant and Dhanesh were present in the house. PW 30 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer of Vodafone has stated that Mobile NO. 9911774480 was registered in the name of Vikrant Singh. Customer Application form as well as ID proof have been proved as Ex.PW30/A and CDR have been proved as Ex.PW30/B and certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been proved as Ex.PW30/C.
66. PW6 Lady Ct. Manoj Kumari has stated that at about 09.11 p.m. on 05.05.203, she was working on Channel No. 158, PHQ and she received a call from Mobile No. 9911774480 regarding quarrel between husband and wife at 13 Block2, Kalyan Puri, Delhi.
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 33 of 45She proved PCR form in this regard as Ex.PW6/A. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused persons. Therefore, presence of accused Vikrant and Dhanesh has not been disputed at the spot at about 09.11 p.m. on 05.05.2013. PCR reached at the spot amd prepared report. Relevant portion of the PCR form Ex.PW6/A is quoted hereinunder: "05.05.2013 21.24.56, Yaha Ek Ladies Ka Murder Ho aya Hai, LP Ko Bhijwaye. Yaha Kafi Gathering Ho Gayi Hai. Jisne Apni Biwi Ka Murder Kiya Hai Use Thane Le Ja Rahe Hai. 21.49.09 Vikrant S/o Ajit Age 22 years R/o 13/2 Kalyan Puri Ne Aphi Biwi Ka Nam Vinita Ka Chaku Se Gala Kat Ker Murder Ker Diya Hai Jo Mauka Par Dead Padi Hai. Vikrant LP Ke Hawele Kiya Hai Jinki Shadi Ko 1 Yrs Hua Hai Chaku Bhi Mauka Par Pada Hai. 21.50.19 ACP Sahab Na Bataya Hai Ki Vinita 9 Month Ki Pregnant Hai Jise Hosp. Le Ja Rahe Hai. 05.05.2013 21.56.22 Murder Ki Vajah Ka Ahi Nahi Pata Chala Hai Chaku Churi Type 8/9 Inch Lamba Tha. 05.05.2013 22.17.29 Vinita Ko Va Uske Stomach Ke Dono Bachho Ko Dead Declare Ker Diya Hai LBS Hosp. Me. 05.05.2013 22.18.06 Dr4. LBS Ne Dead Declare Kiya Hai."
67. This PCR form was filled by PW6 Lady Ct. Manoj Kumari, who was working at PHQ. This witness has not been at all crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons. Hence, contents of PCR form Ex.PW6/A as well as deposition of PW6 stand admitted by the accused persons.
68. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 34 of 45 that PCR form Ex.PW6/A has not been proved on record for want of Certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. For this, reliance has been placed on "Achchey Lal Yadav vs. State" 204 (8) LRC 236 (Delhi).
69. PCR form Ex.PW6/A has been authenticated by ACP, CPCR, PHQ Delhi. PW6 Lady Ct. Manoj Kumari herself was working on Channel No 158 and she herself had received the information mentioned in this PCR form, typed out the same on the computer and took print out of the same, so the computer was only used as a typewriter and the printout taken is original output, so there is no need of any Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, when the witness, who herself had received the information, typed and printed the information and she has proved the PCR form, it dispenses with the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as the witness herself had deposed about contents of the information mentioned in this PCR form. Hence, there is no force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and judgment relied upon also does not render any assistance to the accused persons. Moreover, PW6 has made oral statement in Court regarding what she heard and recorded but she was not cross examined.
70. PW3 Sh.Amrish Kumar initially did not support the case of the prosecution and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl PP. In SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 35 of 45 his crossexamination by Ld. Addl PP, he admitted that he had not seen any stranger entering or coming out from the house of accused on the day of incident.
71. As per case of the prosecution, accused Vikrant committed murder of Vinita with knife Ex.P1, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW23/C. Seizure memo bears signatures of accused Vikrant. This knife was stained with blood. It has come in evidence that accused brought a pair of knives and another knife Ex.P6 was got recovered him from almirah of his house and said knife was seized vide memo Ex.PW23/J.
72. It has been contented by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that sketch of the knife allegedly used by the accused Vikrant is not signed by accused Vikrant, whereas as per Police signatures of accused Vikrant were obtained on memos.
73. I have perused the sketch Ex.PW23/B. It is true that this sketch does not bear signatures of accused Vikrant, nevertheless its seizure memo Ex.PW23/C bears signatures of accused. Sketch and seizure memo of other knife also bear signatures of accused Vikrant and other memos pertaining to accused Vikrant bear his signatures. Hence, omission of signature of accused Vikrant on sketch Ex.PW23/B of the knife hardly makes any difference and is not of much relevance.
74. Secondly variance in the Crime Scene Report and SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 36 of 45 other memos regarding timing of recovery of knife and nonsigning thereof by public witnesses is not of such relevance as the blood on the knife and on Jeans worn by accused Vikrant was of deceased. Hence, recovery of the knife can not be said to be doubtful.
75. Minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses have been pointed out during the course of arguments. However, same can not be allowed to defeat substantive evidence on record.
76. It has come in evidence that Jeans Ex.5 of the accused Vikrant was stained with blood and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW23/K.
77. PW25 is Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. On 21.05.13, nine sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini alongwith sample seal. The same were marked to him for examination. He examined the above exhibits and blood was detected on Ex.1, Ex.2a, Ex.2b, Ex.4, Ex.5, Ex.6, Ex.7, Ex.8 and Ex.9. DNA examination was also conducted on exhibits on source of Ex.1, Ex.2a, Ex.4, Ex.5, Ex.6, Ex.7, Ex.8 and Ex.9. DNA profile was generated on source of Ex.1, Ex.2a, Ex.6 and Ex.8. However, DNA profile could not be generated on source of Ex.4, Ex.5, Ex.7 and Ex.9.
78. DNA profile (STR Analysis) performed on the source of Ex.1, Ex.2a, Ex.6 and Ex.8 were sufficient to conclude that the SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 37 of 45 DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.6 (i.e blood in gauze of deceased) is similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.1 (Knife), Ex.2a (ie blanket) and Ex.8 (i.e. Jeans of accused). His detailed reports are Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B.
79. There is no explanation from the side of accused as to how blood of the deceased came on his Jeans. In the absence of any explanation in this regard, coupled with the fact that blood of the deceased was also found present on the knife Ex. P1 used in the murder and report of FSL Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B, admission of the contents of the PCR Form and testimony of PW6; presence of the accused Vikrant and Dhanesh at the spot at the relevant time and admission of PW3 in his testimony that he had not seen any stranger entering or coming out from the house of accused on the day of incident, I hold that it was the accused Vikrant Singh who committed murder of his wife Vinita in furtherance to common intention with his mother accused Dhanesh as they were the only persons present in the house with Vinita and after committing murder of Vinita, both the accused persons came out of the house. It has come in evidence of PW3 that no outsider had entered or come out from the house of accused persons on the day of incident at or around the time of incident.
80. However, it may be agitated on behalf of the accused Dhanesh that she has not been charged for offence under Section SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 38 of 45 302/34 IPC, therefore, she can not be convicted therefor. However, this contention is not be tenable in view of specific provision laid down in Section 221 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced hereinunder:
"221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed:(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some once of the said offences. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub section(1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.
81. Hence, when there is clear cut evidence on record that accused Vikrant committed murder of Vinita in furtherance to common intention shared with his mother accused Dhanesh, then there is no embargo in convicting Dhanesh for offence under Section 302/34 in view of Section 221(2) Cr.P.C.
82. It has also come in evidence that deceased Vinita was in advanced stage of her pregnancy when she was murdered and thus it stands proved on record that accused Vikrant Singh and accused Dhanesh caused death of twins unborn children. It also stands proved SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 39 of 45 on record that accused Vikrant Singh used knife Ex.P1 in commission of murder of Smt. Nita in violation of Notification of Delhi Administration.
83. Accused Smt. Dhanesh allegedly absconded during the course of investigation and failed to appear in response to a proclamation published under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per record, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. qua accused Smt. Dhanesh was issued on 19.08.2013. As per report allegedly given by SI Murtaza at the back of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the copy of process was pasted at the house of accused Dhanesh R/o 13/2, Kalyan Puri, Delhi and process was also read out at the crossing near house of the accused.
84. SI Murtaza Khan has been examined as PW24. But he did not speak a word about execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Smt. Dhanesh. He simply stated that accused Smt Dhanesh surrendered in the Police Station on 21.04.2014 and was formally arrested. Therefore, defence counsel could not put question regarding the authenticity of the report filed by SI Murtaza Khan on the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., hence, the same has put a dent on the case of the prosecution qua accused Smt. Dhanesh om respect of offence Under Section 174A IPC. Hence, proceedings conducted against accused Smt. Dhanesh under Section 82 Cr.P.C. stands vitiated. Accordingly, accused Smt. Dhanesh is acquitted of SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 40 of 45 the charge under Section 174A of IPC.
85. There is nothing on record that accused Ajeet Singh was present at the time of murder nor there is any evidence that he shared common intention with accused Vikrant Singh and Smt. Dhanesh. Hence, accused Ajeet Singh is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
86. However, in view of above discussion, both the accused Vikrant Singh and Smt. Dhanesh are held guilty under Section 302/34 IPC; accused Vikrant Singh is also held guilty for offence under Section 316 IPC and under Section 27 Arms Act and they are convicted thereunder.
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 18.01.2017 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 41 of 45
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWNT SINGH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.815/2016
CNR No: DLKA010012212013
FIR No.298/2013
Police Station Kalyan Puri
Under Section 302/304B/498A/120B/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act
State Versus (1)Vikrant Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh
(2)Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Jai Prakash
(3) Smt.Dhanesh W/o Ajit Singh
All R/o 13/2, Kalyan Puri, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide judgment dated 18.01.2017, accused Vikrant Singh has been convicted under Sections 302/34/316 IPC & 27 Arms Act, whereas accused Smt. Dhanesh has been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC.
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the convicts as well as Ld. PP for the State on the point of sentence.
3. Ld. PP for the State has submitted that convict Vikrant Singh has not only committed murder of his wife brutally but SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 42 of 45 he even did not think for a second that she was in advanced stage of pregnancy and he also killed two unborn children. Convict gave repeated knife blows on the person of his deceased wife. It is further submitted that convict Smt. Dhanesh was also present at the time of commission of murder of deceased and had shared common intention in committing murder. Manner in which the murder of the deceased was committed brings the case in the category of rarest of rare cases, hence, capital punishment should be awarded in the present case.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convicts has submitted that convict Vikrant Singh is aged about 23 years; he is first offender and has clean antecedents. It is further submitted that convict Smt. Dhanesh is aged about 46 years; she is suffering from high Blood Pressure and Sugar and she is not a previous convict. It is submitted that both the convicts are of middle income group. It is further submitted that facts and circumstances of the case are not such that warrants awarding of capital punishment in the present case. It is submitted that keeping in view their age and the fact that convicts are not previous convicts, a lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the convicts.
5. It is true that convicts have committed murder of an innocent lady and they even did not consider the fact that deceased was member of their family and that she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. However, facts and circumstances of the case do not SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 43 of 45 qualify it to be a rarest of rare cases where death penalty is warranted. Another option available in a case under Section 302 IPC is sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, following sentences are awarded to the convicts:
(1) Convict Vikrant Singh is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/ is also imposed on him for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for 2 months.
(2) Convict Vikrant Singh is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ is also imposed on him for offence under Section 316 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for 2 months.
(3)Convict Vikrant Singh is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/ is also imposed on him for offence under Section 27 Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for 1 month.
(4) Convict Smt. Dhanesh is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/ is also imposed on him for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for 2 months.
6. All the sentences awarded to the convict Vikrant Singh shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 44 of 45 extended to both the convicts. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence shall be given to both the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 08.02.2017 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No.815/16 State Vs. Vikrant Singh etc. Page 45 of 45